Have we just witnessed the first shot in World War III?

Might very well be, If and a big If Syria response's to the Attack and strikes back,or if Iran strikes Israel.

Then the US would have to step in. Thus the mid east would become the steeping stone for all to come play. You are right the Stage is set the players
have been given the script Act one scene one has been read, and played out,

That was the US saying no scene 2 UK sending in weapons and Aid where the US did not, and Scene 3,Israel making the Air or Missie strikes, depending
on what news you read or reports you go by, this ends Act one.
Act 2 is of by all means ab-lvi, there is no script of Act 2 scene one,it is all off the cuff words and actions, for no one knows how the next act
will play out. scene 2 of act 2 does have a script but depends on how scene one is played.

Ha ha. What did you do a quick google?? You are not that bright. Ever read this book:

Screw it the image, I cant place here. The book is called The Grand Chessboard.

Well I have and he lays out the whole central asia, caspian basin strategy.

This guy is CFR and highly respected in terms of geo-political strategy, He us a neocon in his own right, He is an academic.

He is a player and confidant:

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a CSIS counselor and trustee and cochairs the CSIS Advisory Board. He is also a senior research professor of international
relations at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, in Washington, D.C. He is cochair of the American Committee for
Peace in the Caucasus and a member of the International Advisory Board of the Atlantic Council.

edit on 5-5-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason
given)

edit on 5-5-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

This is the man who was the chief creater of the hostage rescue mission, against advice that it wouldn't work, and pushed Carter for the go ahead.
After the failed attempt we were left extremely weak in the region because Brzezinski failed to see how these policy rules he was helping form were
harming our international appearance.

First he started off advising the US to take a timid, reactionary role which led to our hostages being taken and then after his failed plan he pushed
Carter in the opposite direction to a very aggressive role in the ME. Its why Carter's foreign policy is considered very unsure with no clear goals.

I am surprised op hasnt received more s&f with more pages of comments. Perhaps much of the world will do nothing and look at each other to see if
anyone else will make the next move. Lets be honest, if any nation declares war on israel, do u think no other nation will respond agaInst israel?
Half of the posters on ats hate israel; enemy of my enemy... I fear dark stormclouds ahead. Not certain about ww3, but the middle east will once again
b the top story for many wks or months to come. How many children will suffer for this? The depravity of man

The world is simply too globalized now for there ever to be another world war. What happens in one country has ripple effects through all the worlds
economies. In order for there to be a war somebody will need to be extremely desperate.

Like suppose China gets cut off from oil and they invade Siberia hoping to grab up the oil fields before they nukes rain down on them. You can already
see why this is highly unlikely but that's the kind of situation needed to draw everyone into a battle.

I really see no scenario where we could possibly have a world war again.

When he was advising Kissinger he was an advocate of Realpolitik then switched to liberal internationalism under Carter. He has no clue about what
direction he wants to go in and often changes his complete ideology. Currently he has moved even further to the left by criticizing the US for not
working enough with other countries to settle international disputes.

This is completely opposite his earlier views. First he was pro-reaction then when it failed under Carter he switched to a more aggressive foreign
policy stance which he has since changed into one of cooperation. He's flippity which is why he is not credible no matter how many job titles he has.

I haven't seen any proof that Israel did this. Saying that is as likely as me saying that an American special forces team fast roped in from choppers
and set charges to start a fire in the ammo dump.

The reports I hear of "Israeli", "rockets", "research", "Hezbollah"... whatever. Nada except some night time footage that begins part way into
whatever action is taking place there. Fires are seen burning the brush all around so some time has elapsed before we are allowed to see the big
explosion.

Its the next day and after all the conjecture on ATS, I am still not believing whatever the MSM and all her parrots on here are spouting.

Syria is under attack. An ammo dump went up last night. Big explosion. Lots of big explosions in Syria of late. If Israel wants to take credit for
helping bring down the state of Syria, then that has got to be some kind of clue...

Well, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that Iran/Syria hell all the middle east hates Israel, Also Russia, supports the Syrian regime,
also that North Korea, hates South Korea, USA, etc. North Korea, and Syria, and also even Iran, are not in good positions at the moment, and blame
USA Israel etc. etc.

so yea I do not have the time to watch this story unfold page by page, but it does not take rocket science to understand the how and why people will
start killing each other over this stuff, With Israel declaring war on Syria, with bombs and all the threats and bullcrap coming out of North Korea,
and looking at all the Chinese, Russian and also American Posturing, you can or I can see a common denominator developing.. The million dollar
question is when this is going to go down, I think it will be a calculated attack from the Asian theater, and the Asia Minor theater it could be an
attack made simultaneously lets not forget how WW2 started folks how America got drug into that war was when we got attacked got sneak attacked their
was no declaration of war it was a surprise attack. The few times America has been attacked it has been sneak attacks btw 1812 etc. I am sure it
could be debated etc.

My point is there is a good chance it will be a sneak attack against America etc, and a attack that in some way will be/or try to be a crippling
blow.. Like the pearl harbor attack etc. etc.

My reply to your comments has nothing to do with you personally I am just expanding on your thoughts with mine..

He wasn't advising Kissinger. Kissinger was freaking Secretary of State. And a war criminal, I might add.

The man is an academic. He is a policy guy. Pencil pusher, if you will.

Read the freaking book. It will tell you all you need to know.

Who am I kidding you won't read the book. You'll just google and make a post about some obscure event without ever dealing with the issue. Cuz you
don't know. You want to act like you know but you make stupid statements that give you up.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 once again created a situation of political vacuum in Central Asia. The resultant authoritarian but weak
former Soviet satellite republics were still considered part of Russia's sphere of influence, but now Russia was only one among many competitors for
influence in the new Central Asian states. By 1996, Mongolia would also assert its independence from Russia's influence. Further, the North Caucasus
Russian republic Chechnya would claim independence, leading to the First and Second Chechen Wars with Russia winning the latter.
Geostrategist and former United States National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski analyzed Central Asia in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard,
terming the post-Soviet region the "Black Hole" and post-Soviet Central Asia (the Caucasus, former SSRs, and Afghanistan) in particular the
"Eurasian Balkans." The area is an ethnic cauldron, prone to instability and conflicts, without a sense of national identity, but rather a mess of
historical cultural influences, tribal and clan loyalties, and religious fervor. Projecting influence into the area is no longer just Russia, but also
Turkey, Iran, China, Pakistan, India and the United States:
Russia continues to dominate political decision-making throughout the Caucasus, Central Asia, and former SSRs in general. As some of these countries
shed their post-Soviet authoritarian systems and integrate with Western organizations such as the EU and NATO, Russia's influence has decreased in
those nations. Yet, Russia continues to be the primary power in both the Caucasus and Central Asia, especially in light of the Russian victory over
Georgia - and by proxy Western powers - in August 2008, and the many hydrocarbon deals signed between Moscow and the Central Asian states.
Turkey has some influence because of the ethnic and linguistic ties with the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, as well as serving as the
Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline route to the Mediterranean and a route for natural gas pipelines (South Caucasus Pipeline; Nabucco Pipeline).
Iran, the seat of historical empires which controlled parts of Central Asia, has historical and cultural links to the region, as is vying to construct
an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf.
China, projects significant power in the region through its border with Central Asia in Xinjiang, especially in energy/oil politics.
Pakistan, armed with nuclear weapons, and employing its security forces, among the largest in the world, has massive influence in and around Kashmir
and Afghanistan. Kashmir is hotly contested for with India, while Afghanistan has been used by the Pakistan army as part of its 'strategic depth' in
case of war and is now a new proxy war between India and Pakistan.
India, as a nuclear-armed and strong rising power, exercises much influence in the region, especially in Tibet with which it has cultural affinities.
India is also perceived as challenging a potential counterweight to China's regional power. The Farkhor Air Base in Tajikistan gives the Indian
military the required depth and range in seeking a larger role in South Asia and is a tangible manifestation of India’s move to project its power in
Central Asia, a policy goal formally enunciated in 2003–2004.
The United States with its military involvement in the region is also significantly involved in the region's politics but on a lower level than
either China or Russia whose relations with the Central Asian states are more comprehensive, and lack the democratization factor which Washington
espouses. link

He wasn't advising Kissinger. Kissinger was freaking Secretary of State. And a war criminal, I might add.

The man is an academic. He is a policy guy. Pencil pusher, if you will.

Read the freaking book. It will tell you all you need to know.

Who am I kidding you won't read the book. You'll just google and make a post about some obscure event without ever dealing with the issue. Cuz you
don't know. You want to act like you know but you make stupid statements that give you up.

Of course he wasn't advising him sorry if I implied that. The point was that his advice was completely opposite of Kissinger's and it turned out to
be the bad call unless you think Kissinger's job in Asia was a failure.

That of course is debatable depending on how your political leanings are. He also thought the Vietnam War was a good idea which shows you how off his
policy vision is.

Who Kissinger? Dude, that guy can't even leave the country because of his war crime warrants.

Oh yeah, I suppose we won the Viet Nam war too.

Whatever.

I am done here.

Brzeziniski actually supported the Vietnam war if I remember correctly.

Not something someone should want attributed to them if they want respect in international relations. If anyone should know why that it was a mistake
you'd think it would be someone with Brzeziniski's credentials.

All the neo cons supported the Viet Nam war. I wasn't giving him accolades for his humanitarian work. I told you from the get he was a neocon. I
don't send him Christmas cards. I was just trying to explain to you the geo-political significance of the area. A couple pages back you were
talking about how Syria is no big deal. LOL

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.